4.6 Article

Neutrophils as a Source of Chitinases and Chitinase-Like Proteins in Type 2 Diabetes

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141730

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wroclaw Medical University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The pathophysiological role of human chitinases and chitinase-like proteins (CLPs) is not fully understood. We aimed to determine the levels of neutrophil-derived chitotriosidase (CHIT1), acidic mammalian chitinase (AMCase) and chitinase 3-like protein 1 (YKL-40) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and verify their association with metabolic and clinical conditions of these patients. Methods Neutrophils were obtained from the whole blood by gradient density centrifugation from 94 T2D patients and 40 control subjects. The activities of CHIT1 and AMCase as well as leukocyte elastase (LE) were measured fluorometrically and concentration of YKL-40 immunoenzymatically. Also, routine laboratory parameters in serum/plasma were determined by standard methods. Results The levels of all three examined proteins were about 2-times higher in diabetic patients in comparison to control subjects. They were significantly correlated with the activity of LE and increased progressively across tertiles of LE activity. Moreover, the activities of CHIT1 and AMCase were significantly correlated with each other. Metabolic compensation of diabetes did not influence the levels of these proteins. In the subgroup of patients with inflammatory evidence only YKL-40 concentration was significantly higher compared to those without inflammation. The highest levels of all three proteins were observed in patients with macroangiopathies. Insulin therapy was associated with lower levels of examined proteins. Conclusions We revealed that neutrophils may be an important source of the increased levels of chitinases and CLPs in T2D, and these proteins may participate in inflammatory mechanisms in the course of the disease and consequent development of diabetic angiopathies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据